Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

We've heard recently of CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, a bill currently making its way through Congress that many are calling the latest incarnation of SOPA. Reader SolKeshNaranek points out an article at Techdirt explaining exactly why this bill is bad, and how its backers are trying to deflect criticism by using language that's different and rather vague. Quoting:
"The bill defines 'cybersecurity systems' and 'cyber threat information' as anything to do with protecting a network from: '(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.' It's easy to see how that definition could be interpreted to include things that go way beyond network security — specifically, copyright policing systems at virtually any point along a network could easily qualify."

Why must we have overbearing, obsequious legislators whose only goals seem to be to annoy, obfuscate, and make dirty money? The power to expel a Congressman should extend to anyone in the US with at least a given number of supporters.

You know what's worse? Some normal people actually support it. They don't even care about collateral damage. They want the so-called "criminals" stopped no matter what. Basically, as long as the copyright infringers are punished, it doesn't matter to them how many innocent people are also unfairly punished (sometimes having their internet shut off, for instance) or accused.

you don't *have* to be christian (in the public's eye) but it sure helps. a lot.

otoh, if you openly admit you don't believe in sky daddies and the like, you'll never get anywhere in american public office. (heck, even in business, its a show-stopper).

also, if you appear too intelligent, that's a major turn-off to the american voting public. it makes me ashamed of my own country, when I think of that, but we all know about the anti-intellectualism that is on the rise.

Yeah, i've seen that kind of thing, and I was avoiding it on purpose. Because, most people who pledge to never vote for a "Christian" or any other person of faith, will do exactly that come Nov. this year. Many of those will vote for Obama, and do so gladly because... well Obama is their kind of person of faith.

I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.

Me, I'm not a "Christian". I am a Libertarian, and I don't have a problem with people of faith (or lack their of) politically. My point, Atheists will mock religious people and how they vote, but then often vote for exactly the person they just mocked (like Obama). They compromise their own values in doing so.

Unless Atheists some how got the message (hidden) that Obama isn't really a Christian (or Muslim), in which case, he is pretending (lying) about it, just to get elected. What kind of values is that?

>I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.

What are the alternatives? Even Ron-let's-eat-children-Paul stands firmly behind banning abortions. On the state level, obviously. God forbid they are banned on the Federal level.

Perhaps you meant Douglas Adams, who died a few years ago.
Scott Adams, while witty enough in his Dilbert cartoons, is no substitute. Among other things, he believes in non-causal phenomena.

Now Dan Dennett [wikimedia.org] or Robert Sapolski [wikimedia.org] or Sam Harris [wikimedia.org] would likely be good presidential material, at least from the governance of people perspective (if you could arm-twist them into submitting to such an ordeal). Alas, they are far too rational to be acceptable to the electorate, especially if pitted against the usual rab

1- People can have faith and not be bigots. You don't seem to make a difference between an Obama christian and a Santorum christian ? Or, to stay on the supposedly same side of the spectrum, a Reagan christian and a Santorum christian ?

2- There's a wide gap between being an atheist, and insisting on a atheist president.

3- as a libertarian, which libertarian candidate will you vote for this coming election ? Or will you "compromise your values", too ? Or give up and not vote at all ?

I think you have gotten this the wrong way around. In USA, quite a large proportion of the voting public claims they will not vote for a candidate simply because the candidate is atheist (the number is significantly higher than the corresponding number for Muslims). I haven't seen any numbers for the proportion of voters who would never vote for a Christian, but I don't think anybody would claim that they are significant, given the proportion of the American public who are Christians. In general, atheists d

The problem in the US is that people can either vote for Obama or vote for the republican alternative. It has little to do with being an atheist and (hypocritically) voting for the Christian guy. It's mostly just a choice between the bad Christian guy or the worse Christian guy. So unless you really don't care (and abstain your vote altogether), you'll end up voting for the least bad guy just to prevent the worst guy from getting into office.

Here in the Netherlands, where I live, we have a great diversity of parties. Some of those have a strong religious background, others haven't got that at all. It doesn't always make it easier to get things done if a multitude of parties are involved, but at least there's a much broader choice for the voters.

Yeah, i've seen that kind of thing, and I was avoiding it on purpose. Because, most people who pledge to never vote for a "Christian" or any other person of faith, will do exactly that come Nov. this year. Many of those will vote for Obama, and do so gladly because... well Obama is their kind of person of faith.

I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.

Me, I'm not a "Christian". I am a Libertarian, and I don't have a problem with people of faith (or lack their of) politically. My point, Atheists will mock religious people and how they vote, but then often vote for exactly the person they just mocked (like Obama). They compromise their own values in doing so.

Unless Atheists some how got the message (hidden) that Obama isn't really a Christian (or Muslim), in which case, he is pretending (lying) about it, just to get elected. What kind of values is that?

To expand on your point... I have not believed in magical, invisible flying friends since I was about seven years old. That said, what choices do I or anyone else have? There sure aren't any admitted atheists on the ballot. So do I vote for the social justice candidate Obama, who wants to share the wealth or the whacked out Mormon candidate who not only believes in Flying Friends but believes he is destined to become one. The only other choice is to abstain and not vote at all. That leaves the choice entire

I agree. Having to wait until an election to get rid of a politician is ridiculous. The system is set up to exploit people's stupidity and forgetfulness. The politicians allegedly represent us, so we should have the power to fire them at any time, preferably in the middle of a hot-button issue like SOPA. A simple petition with X number of signatures would be a good way to do it.

For every Congressman you could hypothetically shitcan at a moment's notice, there are a dozen more equally corrupt politicians at the state level ready to take their place. And for every Governor, Mayor etc that gets the axe (or gets promoted into a recently vacated congressional seat) there will always be a Secretary of State, greasy lawyer, corrupt CEO, Community Organizer, or some guy named Moonbeam.

The whole process is rotten to the core, and attracts like minded people into it's ranks. I see two possible outcomes, (1) some paradigm will shift and the process will slowly gravitate back towards honesty and intelligence with law-makers genuinely giving a crap about their constituents... or (2) it will continue to worsen until the populace cannot take it anymore, at which point things should get... interesting.

Maybe if we could shitcan them on the spot, then the bad ones won't bother running.

Biggest reason they are corrupt as they are right now is that they have no reason to fear the voters. All they have to do is lie through their teeth during campaign season, then once they're safely in office and the only ones who can get rid of them are their fellow politicians, the wolves can safely take off their wool cloaks.

SERIOUSLY police the income of the bastards. don't allow them to live any better than they were before taking public office. and the same for afterwards! I'm serious about this; the money IS the corruption.

I fully believe there are people who do good things because they believe its the 'right thing to do'. but those people never make it to office (for lots of reasons). and the ones who are in office are the sociopathic types (generally, its true, with few exceptions).

remove all profit motive and ensure that even after office, there won't be any funny business. yes, that's hard to implement and the details are hard. but I bet it would take the 'bad element' out of our government, our police, our courts and we'd be able to restore trust in our 'leaders' again.

"he was playin' real good. for free."

there's none of that left in public office. that's the problem. they are all in it for the power, money, influence. remove that motive and you filter out all the badies. and then things will improve.

I'm not so clear on exactly how they get to vote for their own salary adjustments. I wish I could do that at work! But go up to your congressman and say: hey, I want to pass a bill to allow the people to vote for your salaries. It won't work. "Yeah, constituent, let me get right on that after we fix the economy, healthcare, and this little energy situation."

"Here's a new, beautiful 18 year old secretary for you. To help you in your important work. She's up for any work task! *nudge nudge, wink wink*

Oh, no worries, we'll of course pay for her salary.Signed MPAA.

PS: Are boys more your thing, maybe? Want to babysit these two kids for us next week?"

or "Here's a bag of white entertainment products for you, sir!"

Money is only important for what it can buy. Remove money, and they'll just get given the perks directly. And unless you put all of them under 24/7 surveillance, and put the ones doing surveillance under surveillance... Then you WILL have corruption.

no, but I'd also like to get rid of campaigns as we know them. we have the internet now. the old ways are not working and we should try new ones. the old assumptions (that travel was slow, communication was slow and no effective way to 'poll the people' about issues) are all wrong, today. but we still have a so-called representative government that is not even close to being the voice of the people. not even close.

If you don't like the campaigns, ignore the campaigns. It isn't difficult. Just don't listen to the fuckers.

That's naïve.
In Canada there is currently an investigation into vote fraud that went like this:
The alleged guilty political party organized a massive amount of robo-phone-calls, claiming to be coming from *another* political party, at dinner time and in the evening, with the purpose of getting the voters pissed of at that *other* party, so that they would change their vote.

You know, now that I think about it... that just might work. Maybe make it a 2/3 majority requirement. If any politician's approval rating gets below ~33%, and you get X number of petition signatures for their removal... hold a "special election" and kick em out

I think it answers GratefulNet's question too: Money

Any turd politician who can run a good campaign for a few months would show their true colors in office, get the boot, and be out the umpteen millions they spent on campaigning. Big busines

Perhaps if the people have the option to issue fines when they throw the bums out. To make things fair, the fines may go up to the total amount they spent when running for office. They will be barred from holding any political office until they pay off the fine.

Why must they be replaced? "Having nobody in office is better than having YOU in office" is a powerful message. And honestly, shit is NOT going to fall to pieces just because we don't have the requisite meddling douche in office for a couple months. Grow a spine. You don't need these people that badly.

The "things get interesting" step is a really horrible option. Rapid changes have the potential to bring up even worse leaders than a corrupt democracy. Instability and a gap at the top have all the same attractions to evil bastards that an election does, except the skills needed are a willingness to shoot people, instead of ability to smile for a camera.

If there's even the slightest chance of stable, gradual change instead of a revolution, fight for the gradual change. Fight as though the revolution were a

to take the devil's advocate/opposite view: if you can kick someone out of office instantly (or nearly) then won't they all be just living for the short term and never long? isn't this even worse than what we have now?

companies are evil, like that. investors often are, too. they want short term this and short term that. very reactive but not long-thinking.

what we have now is totally broken. but your proposal won't work, either.

I'm not sure the current structure is at all correct. rather than making small tweaks, it seems to me we need huge changes. as huge as going from linked linear lists to 2d or 3d trees.

tiered review and rotating officials with some feedback system might be nice to try. lots of watchers watching the watchers. self policing system that ensures stability (think: negative feedback amplifiers, to use a tech analogy).

there is no way the current system self-fixes. no self policing and power goes unchecked. truly, the people and their good is not being looked after. I think a lot of people agree that our system needs an overhaul, not a tune-up.

How about we over a simple corruption vote, such that the populace votes, and if more than 2/3 support it, the politician is not only removed from office, but their assets are forfeit, and they are incarcerated as a felon (the vote being a substitute for a trial). The forfeit assets would at least partially offset the costs of imprisoning the politician.

The idea being that politicians could literally lose their reputation, their money, their vote (in most states), their 2nd amendment rights (in most states)

This could probably be enacted as a state level. It's been a good few years since I looked at the relevant bits of US law, but I believe that it's already technically possible for state governments to recall their representatives and senators.

to take the devil's advocate/opposite view: if you can kick someone out of office instantly (or nearly) then won't they all be just living for the short term and never long? isn't this even worse than what we have now?

Lots of politicians are already taking bribes and thinking in the short term. (that's why stuff like this happens) They are also stashing away favors and other goodies for the long term to ensure that someone will give them a job on some company board in the future. Like others said, they only pretend to care about us during election time. Immediately after that, we are effectively powerless again until the next election. If I call or write my grievances to a politician, they will just give me a politely worded "fuck you" response if I even get one at all.

If you fuck up badly enough on your job, you will probably get fired on the spot. If you fuck up enough times, you will eventually get fired. If you steal from your job or use company resources for your own gain, you will probably get fired if caught. Politicians steal from us all the time and we have no way to stop them. They fuck up all the time or even actively work against us and their incompetence and greed makes everyone suffer. Politicians don't have to live with that fear and they can do a lot more damage to society than practically everyone else. Not having a fail-safe system in place to remove them if they step out of line is absolutely insane. Getting one warning before being sacked is more than generous for those in public office. Finding a temporary replacement to serve out the remainder of the term is fairly simple.

Problem with Democracy is that it leads to mob rule and tyranny of the majority; two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.

The whole point of a Republic is to have statesmen (not politicians) make decisions for their constituents (people), but under the limitations of the governance system they are placed. Right now, the Constitution means whatever people want it to mean, which allows slimy politicians to create and keep resubmitting laws over and over again until they get one passed, and usually i

Yep. Politicians are not sufficiently enthralled to corporations by having to fund expensive campaigns every few years. Let's make them have to fund a permanent campaign, that way they'll be.. less enthralled ?

Wow, there are several tech companies in there. Seems like they didn't hear it the last time we got upset about suppporting this kind of crap. Of course, their support may pre-date this rider, and they just don't realize yet what they're now suporting. Seems like the/. hordes might remedy that.

IBM, as in 'nobody ever got fired for abusing a monopoly' IBM?Intel, as in the company responsible for price fixing, dumping, and bribing companies not to use its competitor's products?Lockheed Martin... You mean a big part of the military industrial complex?Oracle? Seriously?

IBM is not the IBM it once was. Lockheed Martin, as in the SR-71 Blackbird (Wikipedia: "Since 1976, it has held the world record for the fastest air-breathing manned aircraft...").

What company do you respect then? I respect a lot of those companies on that list, even if I don't like them. I respect IBM, but it's a cool, remorseless respect. I used to smirk at Microsoft, but I've lately grown to respect them for their responsiveness to business needs. I respect Intel for their relentless pushing forward of manufacturing technology, their attention to quality, and their surprisingly good marketing department.

On the other hand, I have nothing but disgust for Symantec. Once a great com

The US Chamber of Commerce is a useful resource in the same way as Rush Limbaugh is a useful resource;You know anyone in that club is all about fucking over the common man in the USA for the benefit of the sponsors.

How do you motivate the obese, bewildered masses that only want their iPhones and snacks? Seriously I don't respect the general populace of this country any longer (if I ever did) they get what they deserve.Consumer cattle led to slaughter.

Shift the argument around. If, for the purposes of thwarting a DDOS, an ISP or service provider needed to take drastic actions that could impact innocent parties in the process, should they be given any protection under the law?

Likewise... when the security fails at a major bank (more likely, when it is exposed on a massive scale), what kind of timeline do you expect response in? Do you think Treasury agents on the ground looking for forensic evidence in order to build a case against the bad guys will pro

Or at least global social networks/mail providers/etc. What happens when (if?) other countries with some minimal respect for their citizens privacy (i.e. EU) put laws that forces companies to protect their citizens privacy?

It's like somewhere a bunch of congressmen and lobbyists got other and said:

"Wow, the internet has really been a force for global change. It empowers people to coordinate with each other and share information in a way never before possible. What can be do to put a stop to it?"

This comes at the same time Sony announces a $6.4 billion loss. Im sure they will blame music piracy, yet Apple is making those same billions in profit during a GFC. Can anyone see that one business model is overtaking the other? - Sony obviously cant, and have missed the bus too.

After going to thomas.loc.gov and reading the text of the proposed law, it seems that it really is pretty harmless.'

Once you get past the scary definitions, what you have is a law that requires the government and "cybersecurity providers" to not make public any otherwise confidential material relevant to a security breach.

Plus it allows the government to share information it may have about "cybersecurity threats" with outsiders.

The only really interesting bit in the whole thing is that it uses "entity" a

Even "paleoconservative" Alex Jones [wikipedia.org] is firing up his followers against government internet surveillance legislation in the works. Here's an example [infowars.com] from one of his sites that even made the Drudge Report last Saturday.

to address multiple issues, not the least of which is transgression against your freedom. while the arab spring fallout from wikileaks was an excellent goose for american foreign policy, the occupy movement has left a rank taste in the mouths of billionaires and the government has thus far run out of productive things to do with Bradley Manning, nude or clothed.

dont think of it as trampling your rights, think of it as pepperspray-prevention.

This bill amends the National Security Act of 1947 to include "(1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information" as "cyber threat intelligence". This is important because amending the National Security Act makes "cyber threat intelligence" a product of the intelligence community. This is important because US persons have protections under Title 50 when inclu

You are incorrect there. It is Illigal to Collect where in that collection involves reporting on US persons without a warrent. NOW, it does include provisions for, we where collecting and some random data got into the system, Basically, you have to delete it. Also, once it's IC carp, it dosn't matter if its PI or not its collecting on a US person.
Have you even read the law?

Which are the good laws? Laws good for you? What about laws good for other things, but not so good for you. What about laws which are good for me and bad for you? I make it a point to understand as much of the law as I have time for. There are always going to be laws, and they are always going to screw you if you don't take the time to understand them. Please go read something, spend a few hours on gov tracker if anything. I really recommend starting with the Titles, they make really good bed time reading.

The official summary says this pertains to the protection of government intelligence information and the measures that are necessary to protect it. This is not about protecting movies from file sharers. The intelligence community is not thinking about movies. They're thinking about espionage.